Nuclear industry’s next “renaissance” getting ever more unlikely
As more costly nuclear power plants face closure, industry’s rebound only gets tougher, Tampa Bay Times Robert Trigaux, Times Business Columnist, June 8, 2016 The more the nuclear power industry mopes over its once bright future the more that vision darkens. The latest marketing pitch aimed at reviving a clearly overpriced nuke business is to claim that nuclear power is America’s best new friend in the battle against climate change. Close those polluting coal power plants, nuclear proponents say. Build more nukes instead and enjoy round-the-clock electricity — carbon free.
It’s a smart message. Except for one thing: It doesn’t work. Nukes, as they are now designed and financed, cannot compete with cheap natural gas alternatives.
Some attempts to build nuclear plants have been abandoned — as Duke Energy Florida customers saw with the proposed Levy County nuclear plant north of Tampa Bay. Other plants — Southern Co.’s Vogtle nuclear plant in Georgia or the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina — are behind schedule and billions over budget.
Consider five examples of why the U.S. nuclear power business is losing ground:
1. The V.C. Summer project so far has cost $1.5 billion more than originally estimated. As Duke Energy Florida ratepayers can empathize, South Carolina law allows utilities to charge customers more for cost overruns.
2. Exelon, a major Chicago-based power provider, said this month it plans to shut two money-losing nuclear plants in Illinois after failing to win a bailout in the state’s legislature.
3. Marvin Fertel, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry’s trade association, warned last month that another 15 to 20 nuclear plants are at risk of a premature shutdown in the next decade due to bad economics.
“Over the last several years, companies have shut down — or announced plans to shut down — eight nuclear reactors … about 6,300 megawatts of capacity … 6,000 direct jobs and at least that many indirect jobs … almost 10 percent of the Clean Power Plan’s 2030 carbon reduction goal,” Fertel told an audience at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Nuclear Summit on May 19.
4. In California, the Diablo Canyon plant near San Luis Obispo is the only nuke facility left in the state. Pacific Gas & Electric may seek permission to extend its operating license past 2024. But opponents want the plant to follow the fate of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, shuttered in early 2012.
5. In May, CEO Tim Burke of the Omaha Public Power District urged his board to close its Fort Calhoun Nuclear Generating Station in Nebraska by year end. It is too expensive to operate, he said.
At this rate, there soon won’t be many U.S. nuclear plants left to worry about. Only 99 nuclear reactors are currently in use….http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/energy/as-more-costly-nuclear-power-plants-face-closure-industrys-rebound-only/2280720
EPA PROPOSES SHOCKING THOUSAND-FOLD INCREASE IN RADIOACTIVITY ALLOWED IN DRINKING WATER
From Diane D’Arrigo at NIRS (Nuclear Information and Resource Service)
Note that the public has 45 days from when it is published in the Federal Register to comment to the EPA on the PAG-Protective Action Guides. I’ll post an alert tomorrow. This is a media release below. Feel free to send it to interested reporters. Direct them to the press contacts listed at the top of the release. Thanks! – Kay C.
Proposal Would Permit Radiation Exposures Equivalent to 250 Chest X-Rays a Year
Washington, D.C. – Yesterday, the U.S. EPA quietly issued proposals to allow radioactive contamination in drinking water at concentrations vastly greater than allowed under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The new guidance would permit radiation exposures equivalent to 250 chest X-rays a year. Today, environmental groups called the proposal “shocking” and “egregious.”
The EPA proposed Protective Action Guides (PAGs) would allow the general population to drink water hundreds to thousands of times more radioactive than is now legal. For example, radioactive iodine-131 has a current limit of 3 pico-curies per liter (pCi/L), in water but the new guidance would allow 10,350 (pCi/L), 3,450 times higher. For strontium-90, which causes leukemia, the current limit is 8 pCi/L; the new proposed value is 7,400 pCi/L, a 925-fold increase.
“Clean Water is essential for health. Just like lead, radiation when ingested in small amounts is very hazardous to our health. It is inconceivable that EPA could now quietly propose allowing enormous increases in radioactive contamination with no action to protect the public, even if concentrations are a thousand times higher than under the Safe Drinking Water Act,” said Dr. Catherine Thomasson, Executive Director of Physicians for Social Responsibility.
The Bush Administration in its last days unsuccessfully tried to put forward similar proposals, which the incoming Obama Administration pulled back. Now, in the waning months of the Obama Administration, EPA’s radiation office is trying again.
“These levels are even higher than those proposed by the Bush Administration—really unprecedented and shocking,” said Diane D’Arrigo, Nuclear Information and Resource Service. Continue reading
America’s EPA lifting the level of radioactivity permitted in drinking water
EPA Pushing Hike in Radioactive Contamination in Drinking Water http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/epa-pushing-hike-in-drinking-water-radioactivity/ By Editor June 7th, 2016
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has unveiled a plan allowing radioactive contamination in drinking water at concentrations vastly greater than the levels permitted by the Safe Drinking Water Act for long periods following release of nuclear materials.
The new guidance would permit radiation exposures equivalent to 250 chest X-rays a year for the general population for an unlimited time period.
EPA’s “Protective Action Guides” (or PAGs) dramatically relax allowable doses of radioactive material in public drinking water following a Fukushima-type meltdown or “dirty bomb” attack.
They cover the “intermediate phase” after “releases have been brought under control” – an unspecified period that may last for weeks, months or even years.
The agency has declared that the strict limits for chemical exposure in the Safe Drinking Water Act “may not be appropriate…during a radiation incident.”
EPA states that it “expects that the responsible party…will take action to return to compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act maximum contaminant levels as soon as practicable” but during the indefinite meantime –
The general population may be exposed to radioactive iodine-131 at 10,350 pico-curies per liter of water.
By contrast, the current limit is 3, resulting in a 3,450-times increase; The current strontium-90 limit of 8 pico-curies per liter would be allowed a 925-fold increase; and
In an attempt to shield “sensitive populations,” the plan proposes 500 millirem per year for the general population but only 100 millirem for children under 15, pregnant or nursing mothers without explaining how these latter groups will get access to less contaminated water.
“Given this monstrous proposal, it unclear what lessons EPA learned from the contaminated water calamity of Flint, Michigan,” said. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) executive director Jeff Ruch. “It is unfathomable that a public health agency would prescribe subjecting people to radioactive concentrations a thousand times above Safe Drinking Water Act limits as a ‘protective’ measure.”
Internal EPA documents obtained under Freedom of Information Act litigation brought by PEER show that EPA itself concluded that proposed concentrations “would exceed MCLs [Maximum Contaminant Limits of the Safe Drinking Water Act] by a factor of 100, 1000, and in two instances, 7 million.”
The internal analysis estimated for one radionuclide that drinking only one small glass of water “would result in an exposure that corresponds to a lifetime of drinking liters of water per day at the MCL level.”
The Bush Administration in its last days unsuccessfully tried to put forward similar proposals, which the incoming Obama Administration pulled back.
Now, in the waning months of the Obama Administration, those plans are moving forward with new exposure limits higher than the Bush plan it had rejected.
“President Obama goes to Hiroshima to urge a nuclear-free world while his EPA facilitates a nuclear-ridden water supply,” added Ruch. “It speaks volumes that the current Obama drinking water plan is less protective than his predecessor’s.”
Lack of trust in USA govt’s plans for nuclear waste storage
“You would probably need a referendum where citizens can actually vote to embrace a repository in their community,” Raab said. “The vote would have to be closer to 100 percent than a simple majority.”
Nuclear waste storage plan a matter of trust http://www.capecodtimes.com/article/20160606/NEWS/160609636
BOSTON — Can federal energy officials be trusted to put together an interim storage plan for nuclear waste that provides adequate protection for the population and the environment?
That question was repeatedly asked by those who attended last week’s Boston forum organized by the Department of Energy to get public input on its plan for “consent-based siting” of facilities to temporarily store the 75,000 metric tons of spent fuel from commercial nuclear reactors until a permanent repository is built.
Exelon wants license to operate nuclear plant for 80 years
Exelon Will Seek License to Run Nuclear Plant for 80 Years http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-06/exelon-said-to-seek-license-to-run-nuclear-plant-for-80-years Mark Chediak Jonathan Crawford June 7, 2016
-
Exelon wants 20-year license extension for Peach Bottom site
-
Dominion said it will file similar request for Virginia plant
-
Exelon Corp. said it will seek to extend the operating life of a nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania by another 20 years, joining Dominion Resources Inc. in requesting permission to run atomic generators for as long as 80 years.
Exelon will ask federal regulators for approval to renew the licenses of the two reactors at its Peach Bottom facility, the Chicago-based power generator said Tuesday in a statement. An extension would help the state meet its carbon-reduction goals under the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, Chief Executive Officer Chris Crane said.
Should the commission approve Exelon’s request, the Peach Bottom nuclear station would be among the first U.S. reactors allowed to run beyond 60 years. Dominion said last year that it would seek approval to keep the Surry nuclear power plant in Virginia online until it’s 80 years old.
- The requests come at a pivotal time for the U.S. nuclear power industry as some operators including Exelon have announced plans to retire plants early because of financial losses. Competition from generators using cheap natural gas and renewable resources such as solar and wind have squeezed the profits of reactor owners, particularly those who sell their supply into wholesale power markets.
‘Renewal Program’
Exelon had issued a statement on Monday saying that Crane would join officials including Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Chair Gladys Brown at the Peach Bottom station for an announcement on Tuesday “concerning the Station’s license renewal program.”
The two operating reactors at the Peach Bottom plant are licensed to operate through 2033 and 2034, according to Nuclear Regulatory Commission data. Exelon will seek federal permission for licenses that extend to 2053 and 2054, the company said. Exelon’s reactors received their original operating licenses in 1973 and 1974, according to the commission.
USA tries to bend the rules, so Toshiba-Westinghouse can sell nuclear reactors to India
No Exceptions for a Nuclear India http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/05/opinion/sunday/no-exceptions-for-a-nuclear-india.html?_r=0 By THE EDITORIAL BOARD JUNE 4, 2016 America’s relationship with India has blossomed under President Obama, who will meet with Prime Minister Narendra Modi this week. Ideally, Mr. Obama could take advantage of the ties he has built and press for India to adhere to the standards on nuclear proliferation to which other nuclear weapons states adhere.President Bush squandered an opportunity to demand more of India when he signed the 2008 deal, which opened the door to American trade in nuclear technology for civilian energy, something India had insisted was a prerequisite to more cooperation and lucrative business deals.
As part of the 2008 deal, the Indians promised they would be “ready to assume the same responsibilities and practices” as other nations with advanced nuclear technology. But they have fallen far short by continuing to produce fissile material and to expand their nuclear arsenal.
The Nuclear Suppliers Group is to discuss India’s application later this month. Mr. Obama is lobbying for India to win membership through a special exception. If he succeeds, India would be in a position to keep Pakistan, which has also applied for membership, from gaining membership because group decisions must be unanimous. That could give Pakistan, which at one time provided nuclear technology to North Korea and Iran, new incentives to misbehave.
Opposition from China, which is close to Pakistan and views India as a rival, could doom India’s bid for now. But the issue will not go away. India is growing in importance and seeking greater integration into organizations that govern international affairs. If it wants recognition as a nuclear weapons state, it should be required to meet the nuclear group’s standards, including opening negotiations with Pakistan and China on curbing nuclear weapons and halting the production of nuclear fuel for bombs.
Energy storage favours the renewable revolution, not outdated nuclear power
“…….Berkeley Energy Professor Daniel Kammen ably defended energy storage, ……. Energy storage is cost competitive already in some markets—unlike new nuclear, Kammen said, and its price is dropping on a steeper curve than the dramatic reductions seen in solar costs. Storage will be more effective in the decentralized energy grid that’s emerging, he continued, than nuclear could be.
“The dramatic ramp up in solar resulted in the dramatic realization that a diverse, decentralized system can provide the same critical features that we think about with a baseload highly centralized system,” said Kammen. “Not tomorrow, but in the time frame that we need it, it’s absolutely there.”….
Ball summarized: ”So the argument is that rather than having yesterday’s no-carbon technology, which is a very centralized big generation technology, you think the world now has tomorrow’s no-carbon technology, which looks like a ballet of lots of different sources ready to go.”
In addition to batteries, compressed air storage is cost competitive, Kammen said, and flywheel storage can deliver power in sub-milliseconds. And in time, electric cars, buses and other vehicles will be used as a storage resource, he said. That’s a strategy China is pursuing and that Kammen has suggested the rest of the world consider, not in the next five years, but a bit later as these technologies develop and proliferate.
Meanwhile, small modular nuclear reactors won’t be ready in time to meet the grid’s needs, he said, and conventional reactors are too expensive.
“If you want to bet on a robust-basic-research to an applied-research-deployment category,” Kammen said, “that far favors the storage revolution than it does the nuclear revolution.”…… Silicon Valley Energy Summit , Forbes 5 June 16
Exelon reactor closures show how the nuclear rot is really settling in for America
Exelon Corp. (EXC) Nuclear Plant Closures Point To Wider Challenges Facing US Nuclear Sector, International Business Times, BY MARIA GALLUCCI @MARIAGALLUCCI ON 06/03/16 Exelon Corp.’s announcement this week that it plans to shutter two Illinois nuclear plants comes at a harrowing time for the U.S. nuclear power sector. Amid fierce competition from cheap natural gas and withering support from state policymakers, utilities are increasingly struggling to keep the aging, hulking power plants in operation.
Chicago-based Exelon (NYSE:EXC), which owns utilities serving Chicago, Philadelphia and Baltimore plus many power plants, said it will close its Clinton plant in mid-2017 and the Quad Cities plant in mid-2018. The nuclear stations lost a combined $800 million in the past seven years, despite being two of the company’s best-performing plants, Exelon said Thursday.
The power company had been waiting on Illinois policymakers to adopt measures to reward nuclear plants and other carbon-free power sources that help the state meet its climate change targets. The legislation included other provisions that would have slapped new charges on consumer energy bills. The policies are entangled in a broader budget war between Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner and House Speaker Michael Madigan, a Chicago Democrat……
Wholesale prices are likely to remain low in the next few years, which could spell a death sentence for aging plants in need of costly upgrades and lengthy repairs. The majority of the country’s 99 nuclear reactors are more than 30 years old and could operate potentially for as long as 80 years — but only if utilities can afford to keep them running.
Between 15 and 20 nuclear reactors are considered at risk of premature closure within the next five to 10 years, the Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade group, has estimated.
Opponents of nuclear power say that may be a good thing, given the longstanding concerns over radioactive waste disposal and the looming threat of a meltdown, particularly in the wake of the 2011 disaster in Fukushima, Japan. An Associated Press investigation that year found that radioactive tritium has leaked from three-quarters of U.S. nuclear power sites and in some cases contaminated the drinking wells of nearby homes.
Entergy’s Indian Point nuclear plant, which sits just 25 miles north of New York City, has faced a series of mishaps in the last year, including a power failure in the reactor core, an alarm failure and the escape of radiated water into groundwater. Federal officials with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are now investigating the degradation of critical stainless steel baffle bolts in one of the plant’s nuclear reactors.
“This aging nuclear power plant is becoming increasingly unreliable and puts the welfare of 20 million people at risk every day,” Paul Gallay, president of the citizen group Riverkeeper, which opposes Indian Point, said in a recent opinion piece………..http://www.ibtimes.com/exelon-corp-exc-nuclear-plant-closures-point-wider-challenges-facing-us-nuclear-2377652
USA pushing nuclear deal with India, in the interests of Japanese company Toshiba Westinghouse
this [India] is a country both Wall Street and Washington have their eyes on
Will U.S. Get India To Ink Big Nuclear Deal With A Japanese Owned Company?, Forbes, Kenneth Rapoza , 2 June,
When Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi comes to town on Monday, a Japanese-owned company may be the biggest beneficiary.
One of the key takeaways Modi and President Obama would would like to see come of this trip is a commitment to build six nuclear power plants by Westinghouse Electric. The Western Pennsylvania based company is an historic American electric manufacturer, but it was acquired by Toshiba in February 2006. Even the Kazakhs own 10% of it under Kazatomprom, their state-owned nuclear power company. Yet, Westinghouse is Washington’s favorite nuclear power company and next week it might make headlines again if it manages to ink a muito-billion dollar deal for its new AP-1000 reactors.
India Ambassador Arun Singh told reporters on Wednesday that the deal was in its “advanced stages.”
The two sides were largely waiting on a nuclear liability law that will essentially create a new insurance product for nuclear power utilities. Westinghouse and its partner in India, the Nuclear Power Corporation (NPCIL), are still waiting for the details of that insurance policy to be ironed out, thinks Richard M. Rossow, a senior fellow on U.S.-India policy for the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington………
Westinghouse has a long history of tapping Washington for lucrative deals abroad. Since the mid-2000s, Westinghouse has been able to count on Washington to pitch its wares to countries where Russia is a key, if not dominant player. Currently, Russia’s Rosatom has only two reactors in India, both located in Tamil Nadu state. India has 21 nuclear power plants, most of it indigenous technology.
A deal for all six power plants would be good news for Westinghouse Electric and its owners at Toshiba, which has fallen on hard luck over the past five years.
Toshiba used to design and build reactors for half of Japan, also supplying those reactors with the fuel rods that hold the uranium used to generate electricity. The March 2011 Fukushima disaster lit a match to those service contracts and Toshiba’s Fukushima reactors are decommissioned. Germany shut its reactors down after Fukushima, too. They also used Westinghouse as a source for fuel rods. In less than two years, Toshiba and Westinghouse Electric lost contracts at 60 reactors. Between 2012 and 2014, Westinghouse Electric’s cumulative operating losses reached $1.43 billion, according to Toshiba……
this [India] is a country both Wall Street and Washington have their eyes on…….http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2016/06/03/will-u-s-get-india-to-ink-big-nuclear-deal-with-japanese-owned-company/#4f7edc32c94f
Georgia new nuclear plant, over budget, behind schedule, and now hits a new snag
Jacob Hawkins said the company will suspend preliminary work on the site if McDonald’s motion passes.
“A delay of even a few years in these actions will jeopardize our ability to keep new nuclear as a timely option for customers,” he said…..
McDonald’s motion comes as the commission is set to hear testimony next week on construction of the nation’s first two commercial nuclear reactors in 30 years at Plant Vogtle, where Georgia Power is the majority owner. It is three years behind schedule and around $1 billion over budget, and the commission staff is investigating whether to recommend having electricity customers pay the tab for the overage.
Last week, SCANA asked the South Carolina counterpart to the commission to charge their customers for $852 million in overages for two reactors it is building at Plant Summer…….http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/metro/2016-06-02/plans-more-nuclear-generation-hit-obstacle?v=1464916692#comment-form
Community group to fight San Onofre nuclear waste plan
Group forms to fight San Onofre nuclear waste plan, San Diego Union Tribune By Jeff McDonald June 2, 2016 Residents of San Diego and Orange counties concerned about the longterm storage of radioactive waste on the coast between Oceanside and San Clemente have organized a new coalition aimed at forcing the removal of tons of spent nuclear fuel.
The group, calling itself Secure Nuclear Waste, is comprised of lawyers, activists, a scientist, an elected official and an emergency-room physician. It is hosting a community meeting at Laguna Beach City Hall next Wednesday evening.
“The deadly radioactive waste is toxic to humans for millions of years,” the group said in a news release criticizing a California Coastal Commission storage permit approved in October. “If nothing is done, the waste could be buried on the beach as early as May 2017 for up to 300 years.”
Secure Nuclear Waste said it organized as a counter to the Community Engagement Panel, a group of volunteers convened by plant owner Southern California Edison to meet regularly and discuss decommissioning of the failed San Onofre nuclear plant.
Members of Secure Nuclear Waste include San Diego consumer attorneys Michael Aguirre and Maria Severson. It also includes Charles Langley of the consumer group Public Watchdog, geologist Robert Pope and transportation consultant Nina Babiarz.
San Juan Capistrano Mayor Pam Patterson, who serves on the Community Engagement Panel due to her elected office, also joined Secure Nuclear Waste. She said the official group is not independent and not forceful enough opposing onsite spent-fuel storage at San Onofre.
“People on the Community Engagement Panel have been hand-picked because they are candy-coating the situation,” Patterson said. “The community needs to understand what’s going on is not in anybody’s best interest. It’s scary what they are doing.”
The Coastal Commission permit, now the subject of a lawsuit filed by the Aguirre & Severson law firm, allows Edison to store 1,600 tons of spent fuel in underground canisters just north of the shuttered nuclear reactors.
The spent fuel historically has been stored in above-ground cooling ponds but Edison is in the process of transferring the waste into steel-lined casks. More than 100 of the 45-ton canisters will then be buried in a massive tomb embedded in the beach.
Critics say the plan does not allow for monitoring the canisters for future degradation or leaks and presents a health threat to the millions of people who live and travel through the region. They say regulators should do a better job mitigating the longterm threat.
“It is an outrage that taxpayers are funding politically appointed bureaucrats at state agencies to create a deadly toxic waste landfill next to an interstate highway and the Los Angeles-San Diego coastal rail corridor,” said Babiarz, the transportation consultant and coalition member. “Our two counties have united to fight this threat to public safety.”……
The first Secure Nuclear Waste meeting convenes Wednesday, June 8 at 6 p.m. at Laguna Beach City Hall, 505 Forest Ave.
The Community Engagement Panel next meets June 22, when a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission expert will discuss so-called consolidated interim storage, the practice or temporarily storing radioactive waste on site until a more permanent federal site is identified. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/jun/02/secure-nuclear-waste/
Make no mistake: America’s nuclear industry is in trouble.
One suggestion for getting the market to better value nuclear’s attributes is changing state renewable energy mandates to “clean energy standards” that would give utilities more incentives to invest in nuclear power
Nuclear plants need boost to stay open, industry warns, The Blade, Davis-Besse on list of most at-risk sites By TOM HENRY | BLADE STAFF WRITER May 30, 2016 Make no mistake: America’s nuclear industry is in trouble.
Many of the strongest statements about it are no longer found in the hyperbole of anti-nuclear groups but in dire predictions from industry figures such as the Nuclear Energy Institute’s Marvin Fertel, who said at a recent U.S. Department of Energy conference in Washington there’s a “sense of urgency” to improve economics of the nation’s 99 remaining nuclear plants……
Ohio and Michigan are among 13 states with deregulated electricity markets where nuclear plants have an especially hard time competing. Those with single units have even more difficulty, officials said.
A 2013 Vermont Law School report listed Davis-Besse as one of a dozen plants most likely to close early because of economics……..
Wind and solar power are attacked by pro-nuclear advocates these days because of their start-up subsidies.
But several years ago, a conservative group, Taxpayers for Common Sense, identified $85 billion in subsidies to nuclear power since 1948, of which more than $66 billion was spent on nuclear energy research and subsidies through 1998…….
The industry expected 30 or more next-generation nuclear plants would be built after billions of dollars in incentives were offered by Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. But those efforts have resulted in the construction of only four new reactors, the twin-unit Vogtle plant in Georgia and the twin-unit V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina…..
One suggestion for getting the market to better value nuclear’s attributes is changing state renewable energy mandates to “clean energy standards” that would give utilities more incentives to invest in nuclear power……http://www.toledoblade.com/Energy/2016/05/30/Nuclear-plants-need-boost-to-stay-open-industry-warns.html
Costs for building South Carolina’s 2 new nuclear reactors have jumped dramatically
SCE&G Requests $852 Million Increase in Cost of VC Summer Nuclear Construction Project; Huntington News, , June 3, 2016 – EDITED FROM A PRESS RELEASE Columbia, SC – The current cost for the construction of two new nuclear reactors by South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G) has jumped a stunning $852 million, according to a request filed with the South Carolina Public Service Commission (SC PSC) on May 26, 2016, (See filing linked in “notes” below.)
The filing made by SCE&G states that “the capital cost estimate for which the Company seeks Commission approval in this proceeding is $6.8 billion in 2007 dollars and $7.7 billion with escalation.”
As SCE&G is now a 55% owner of the project, with Santee Cooper owning the other 45% (set to go down to 40%), this means that the overall cost of the project is now around $14 billion. Expected schedule delays or construction problems will only add to that cost…….
The company has also requested delays in achievement of completion milestones in key aspects of construction.
“The request for a cost of overrun of this magnitude will hit consumers hard and the PSC should for once side with residential and business customers and require for SCE&G its shareholders to bear a major portion of the cost increase as it is in large part due to poor project management,” said Tom Clements, director of Savannah River Site Watch. “The law under which the project is being pursued is not a blank check for endless cost overruns and schedule delays and the company must be held accountable by the PSC for the costly problems and mistakes with the project.”
Also on May 26, SCE&G informed the PSC that it would be filing for its annual nuclear cost rate hike, as allowed by the Baseload Review Act (passed by the SC legislature in 2007). SCE&G rate payers have already been hit with eight (8) rate hike under the BLRA – the first was approved when the project was
approved by the PSC – so the next pay-in-advance rate hike will be number 9. According to the SC Office of Regulatory Staff (ORS) – in an email to Tom Clements in September 2015 – an average SCE&G residential customers is now paying 15.5% of the bill for advance payment of financing costs for the project (as allowed by the BLRA). It is unknown what will happen to rates when the much larger capital (construction) costs go into the bill.
SCE&G claims it has agreed to a “fixed cost” with Westinghouse and Fluor for future costs of the project but that cost can increase with “future change orders which are Owner-directed or based on changed circumstances,” according to the filing, or with any PSC rulings allowing yet more cost increases. “The claim that the cost is fixed is very misleading as it’s clear that there can be future cost increases, all of which would be passed on to the consumer if allowed by the PSC. The cost of the project is not capped and unless the PSC acts responsibly to curb the cost the sky’s the limit on future cost overruns, so customers should be braced for yet more negative rate impacts,” said Clements.
Both Santee Cooper and the electric cooperatives will at some point be hit with higher rates due to the cost increase with the nuclear project but details of those impacts are unknown…….http://www.huntingtonnews.net/137578
U.S. Court of Appeals upholds Nuclear Fuel Storage Rule
Appeals Court Upholds Nuclear Fuel Storage Rule https://morningconsult.com/alert/appeals-court-upholds-nuclear-fuel-storage-rule/ ASHA GLOVER | JUNE 3, 2016 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Friday upheld a rule that allows the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to store spent nuclear fuel at power plants.
The three-judge panel denied a request from four states, including New York, to review the rule, arguing the NRC failed to comply with obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act. The case is not the first time the court has had to address nuclear waste storage, according to the Friday decision.
“The petitioners contend that the NRC did not consider alternatives to and mitigation measures for the continued storage of spent nuclear fuel, miscalculated the impacts of continued storage, and relied on unreasonable assumptions in its environmental impact statement,” Senior Circuit Judge David B. Sentelle wrote in the court’s opinion. “Because we hold that the NRC did not engage in arbitrary or capricious decision-making, we deny the petitions for review.”
Seattle City Council calls for replacing nuclear power with renewable energy
Seattle City Council passes resolution opposing nuclear power
Northwest’s only nuclear power plant is near Richland
Resolution does not call directly for shutdown of Tri-City plant
Resolution supporters say it is important tool for those opposed to nuclear plant BY ANNETTE CARY acary@tricityherald.com 2 June 16 The Seattle City Council this week told its utility to move away from getting electricity from fossil fuels and nuclear energy.
The resolution also directs Seattle City Light Department to use its position on the Energy Northwest board to consider replacing its electricity with carbon-neutral alternatives.
Energy Northwest operates the Northwest’s only nuclear power plant, the Columbia Generating Station near Richland.Its production goes to the Bonneville Power Administration, which supplies a portion of Seattle’s electricity, including about 4 percent of the city’s electricity that comes from the nuclear plant.
The activist group that spearheaded the resolution said the resolution gives Seattle City Light the goal of closing the Richland reactor.
The document, which the Seattle council passed unanimously, is intended to oppose new nuclear efforts and require an ongoing evaluation of existing nuclear power generation on the basis of health, safety, reliability and cost. It also opposes the use of fossil fuels to produce electricity.
The resolution does not explicitly call for a shutdown of the Richland nuclear plant, “but it still is a very important tool that activists believe they can use to put pressure on all those who decide the fate of Columbia Generating Station,” said Councilwoman Kshama Sawant. She called the language in the resolution a compromise. It was written by activist organizations, including Physicians for Social Responsibility and Heart of America Northwest.
Physicians for Social Responsibility said in a statement before the council voted that the resolution would establish Seattle City Light as the first utility in the Northwest to set parameters for closing the Columbia Generating Station.
The resolution makes note of the workforce at the nuclear plant, saying there should be retraining programs, retirement plans and reassignment to decommissioning as part of a transition to clean, healthy and renewable electricity production…..
Those participating in the public comment period of the council meeting supported the resolution. They said the reactor is aging and not designed to withstand a severe earthquake and that the nation has no way to dispose of used nuclear fuel.
They said it has similarities to the reactors involved in the Fukushima, Japan, nuclear disaster. They said nuclear power was not economical and that the electricity it produced — the equivalent of the electricity required by a city the size of Seattle — could be replaced at a reduced cost by a combination of renewables such as wind and solar and conservation.
The resolution discussed the advances being made in storing solar and wind power, which can only be produced as the weather allows, saying the advances make the goal of 100 percent renewable electricity achievable……http://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/local/article81274437.html
-
Archives
- October 2026 (120)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
